Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#102 Feb 12 2011 at 11:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Let the record show that I agree with Alma.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#103 Feb 15 2011 at 1:01 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,954 posts
The world is racist. Luckily, racism is hysterical.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#104 Feb 16 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Since this moved from the silly to the philosophical:

Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:

Got to love it when the very people society protects turn around and become more "powerful" then those original people who protected them.


I assure you that has not happened. Only when society starts to level out (not perfectly), the initial "powerful" side complains that the other side is getting too powerful, when in actuality, they never reached the original position of the "powerful" side.


And how will you know when it does? And when it does, how will you correct for all the rules you tilted in one direction in the effort to "level out" society? I assume we can all agree that in order of bad to good, we should rank things the following way:

1. One group has most of the power and has tilted the rules to make them and keep them that way.
2. One group has most of the power, but the rules are "even".
3. No one group has more power than another.

Agreed?

Quote:
In other words, White men complain when society doesn't tip in their favor, but when you look at the big picture, society still favors white men over any other group of people.


No. What white men are saying is that in the past we were in situation 1, with them as the powerful group. Today we have removed the tilt to the rules that benefited white men and are in situation 2 because of historical social conditions. That power takes some time to "level out" as you say. The problem is that some people, attempting to get us through situation 2 and into situation 3, have decided that tilting the rules in the other direction is the fastest way to get there. But surely you can see that you can't get to situation 3 by doing that. All you will do is cause the pendulum of power to shift to another group, and you'll find yourself back in situation 1.

That's what white men complain about. It's not about the removal of the factors that benefit them, but that those same factors are being put back in place designed to benefit other groups. It took centuries and significant social development for white men to realize that it was unfair for one group (them) to have such power and use the rules to maintain that power and even more time to change the rules to make them fair to everyone. The concern is that this same social maturation process was not experienced by other groups, so when they are handed more power and rules that are tilted in their favor, are they going to be as willing to give that power and the advantage of tilted rules up?


We see this around us all the time in the form of double standards applied based on race. White men for the last several generations have been taught at home and by society to never treat people differently based on their skin, to avoid mentioning racial differences when possible, and absolutely not to make judgments about their relative worth compared to others (unless it is to admit guilt or harm done on their part for past injustices). A white man even mentioning the idea of "white rights", or "white power", in any context is castigated by society in the most harsh of terms. Meanwhile, black men freely speak of black rights, black power, fighting for the advancement of black issues. Heck, think about what the name of the NAACP means. Society would never ever ever accept the same group if it were about the advancement of white people.

The fear is that if/when that pendulum swings, it's unlikely that those raised in that very different racial atmosphere will be take the same high road that white men took decades ago. When so many Blacks and Latinos are taught that it's not just perfectly ok to fight for advantage for their respective ethnicities, but is good and necessary to do so, it's hard to imagine that one day they'll look around, realize that the scales have been balanced and then cancel all the laws that have been passed in the last half century which specifically benefit them. They wont ever think of themselves as not being "minorities" and needing those benefits, even if they actually do possess the power in society.


Or do you think they will? Can you honestly look at the rhetoric coming out of political leaders fighting for various minority causes and say that those people will recognize when things have been leveled out and they'll stop? Or do you think they'll just go right on using the same methods that gained them so much power? History shows that it's an incredibly rare thing for a group that has power to give it up. I'm not holding out much hope.


That's what we fight against. It's not about who holds the power. It's about making sure the rules are even, even if the result isn't. That's the only way to know that we are breaking the historical cycle of oppressor/oppressed and moving on to a better way of doing things. And yes, that means that it'll take longer for wealth to even out, and political representation to even out. But trying to short-circuit the process is counter productive in the long run.

Edited, Feb 16th 2011 7:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Feb 16 2011 at 8:54 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
Since this moved from the silly to the philosophical:...

You decided to silly it up again with TL:DR?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#106 Feb 16 2011 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Since this moved from the silly to the philosophical:...

You decided to silly it up again with TL:DR?


As silly as posting just to say that you didn't read the post you are responding to?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Feb 16 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
gbaji wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Since this moved from the silly to the philosophical:...

You decided to silly it up again with TL:DR?


As silly as posting just to say that you didn't read the post you are responding to?


I think it's a rule that anything over two paragraphs is just skimmed for key words.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#108 Feb 16 2011 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
gbaji wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Since this moved from the silly to the philosophical:...

You decided to silly it up again with TL:DR?


As silly as posting just to say that you didn't read the post you are responding to?


I think it's a rule that anything over two paragraphs is just skimmed for key words.


Which will be the downfall of modern Democracy, trust me!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Feb 16 2011 at 10:33 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:

I think it's a rule that anything over two paragraphs is just skimmed for key words.
That rule is tilted in favor of the more powerful side - Gbaji thing #1.







Edited, Feb 17th 2011 5:34am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#110 Feb 16 2011 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
gbaji wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Since this moved from the silly to the philosophical:...

You decided to silly it up again with TL:DR?


As silly as posting just to say that you didn't read the post you are responding to?


I think it's a rule that anything over two paragraphs is just skimmed for key words.


Which will be the downfall of modern Democracy, trust me!


You know who used multiple paragraphs?


Hosni Mubarak.


That's why the Egyptians overthrew him with Tweets. Smiley: nod
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#111 Feb 17 2011 at 1:15 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Elinda wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:

I think it's a rule that anything over two paragraphs is just skimmed for key words.
That rule is tilted in favor of the more powerful side - Gbaji thing #1.


Eske Esquire wrote:
You know who used multiple paragraphs?

Hosni Mubarak.

That's why the Egyptians overthrew him with Tweets. Smiley: nod


Geez, imagine how many tweets the average gbaji post would take?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#112 Feb 21 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
And how will you know when it does? And when it does, how will you correct for all the rules you tilted in one direction in the effort to "level out" society? I assume we can all agree that in order of bad to good, we should rank things the following way:

1. One group has most of the power and has tilted the rules to make them and keep them that way.
2. One group has most of the power, but the rules are "even".
3. No one group has more power than another.

Agreed?


I would need more time to develop an opinion, but I will go with this for the sake of the argument.

Gbaji wrote:
No. What white men are saying is that in the past we were in situation 1, with them as the powerful group. Today we have removed the tilt to the rules that benefited white men and are in situation 2 because of historical social conditions. That power takes some time to "level out" as you say. The problem is that some people, attempting to get us through situation 2 and into situation 3, have decided that tilting the rules in the other direction is the fastest way to get there. But surely you can see that you can't get to situation 3 by doing that. All you will do is cause the pendulum of power to shift to another group, and you'll find yourself back in situation 1.


I'm not talking for all white men, but there is a significant amount of white men who complain simply because they aren't favored 100% of the time. People complain about B.E.T, when primarily the entire rest of the broadcasting is mostly white. People complain about minority scholarships to universities, when they are also applicable for a minority scholarship at a HBCU.

I don't agree with hiring people for anything other than merit, but many white people complain about hiring minorities to meet a quota. Think about it. If there exists a minimum quota and a company has to hire 4 minorities to meet that quota, that means the remaining 90%+ of the organization are not minorities. This means, at most, a hand full of white men got the shaft.

I've seen this work both ways. When I worked at McDonald's, the store manager would only higher white people because there weren't any in the store. This is done just to say that you have a mixed population. No matter how many white people she hired, there was always more black people. It works the same way the other way around. There is no "take over".

Gbaji wrote:
It took centuries and significant social development for white men to realize that it was unfair for one group (them) to have such power and use the rules to maintain that power and even more time to change the rules to make them fair to everyone.


False: They knew from the beginning. It took centuries and significant social development for society to stop that from happening.

Gbaji wrote:
The concern is that this same social maturation process was not experienced by other groups, so when they are handed more power and rules that are tilted in their favor, are they going to be as willing to give that power and the advantage of tilted rules up?


As stated above, we all know what equality is. As humans we understand "The Golden Rule". Any human that is going for realistic equality will make necessary changes for the said equality. For any system you put in place for any situation, there will always be people who want to take advantage of the system. That is not a reason to not implement the system. You have to be proactive in developing restraints to prevent these people from taking advantage of the system.

For example, welfare. There are some people who genuinely need it while others are playing the system. You don't get rid of welfare, you make it so people can't take advantage of it.

Gbaji wrote:
We see this around us all the time in the form of double standards applied based on race. White men for the last several generations have been taught at home and by society to never treat people differently based on their skin, to avoid mentioning racial differences when possible, and absolutely not to make judgments about their relative worth compared to others (unless it is to admit guilt or harm done on their part for past injustices). A white man even mentioning the idea of "white rights", or "white power", in any context is castigated by society in the most harsh of terms. Meanwhile, black men freely speak of black rights, black power, fighting for the advancement of black issues. Heck, think about what the name of the NAACP means.Society would never ever ever accept the same group if it were about the advancement of white people.


You can only blame white people for that double standard. There will always be double standards and white people created that one by only having negative references to "white power" and treating everyone else like crap along with that saying. White people have tainted that saying here in the U.S, while women and other minority groups have used it in a positive way. If you were able to find a society where white people were the minority and have suffered through like past events, I assure you that society would very well accept the same group for white people.

Gbaji wrote:
The fear is that if/when that pendulum swings, it's unlikely that those raised in that very different racial atmosphere will be take the same high road that white men took decades ago.


What high road? Being forced to treat non white males as equal humans?

Gbaji wrote:
When so many Blacks and Latinos are taught that it's not just perfectly ok to fight for advantage for their respective ethnicities, but is good and necessary to do so, it's hard to imagine that one day they'll look around, realize that the scales have been balanced and then cancel all the laws that have been passed in the last half century which specifically benefit them. They wont ever think of themselves as not being "minorities" and needing those benefits, even if they actually do possess the power in society.


You're confusing what society is trying to teach blacks and latinos vs what the minorities are teaching themselves. Society's answer is to give out hand outs and tilt the pendulum. If you're familiar with black churches, what is taught there is completely different. People are trying to get minorities to NOT rely on hand outs, but to become independent. Instead of taking that job working for someone else business, start your own business, preferably in your own community.

If society stops this "hand out" movement, then many people will go back right where they were before. This is why there is the conspiracy of "The White Man holding the Black Man down". As long as minorities are continuously taking hand outs, they will always be below economically.

Gbaji wrote:
Or do you think they will? Can you honestly look at the rhetoric coming out of political leaders fighting for various minority causes and say that those people will recognize when things have been leveled out and they'll stop? Or do you think they'll just go right on using the same methods that gained them so much power? History shows that it's an incredibly rare thing for a group that has power to give it up. I'm not holding out much hope.



Read above..

If society teaches self-empowerment and independence, your concern will not be an issue.

Gbaji wrote:
That's what we fight against. It's not about who holds the power. It's about making sure the rules are even, even if the result isn't. That's the only way to know that we are breaking the historical cycle of oppressor/oppressed and moving on to a better way of doing things. And yes, that means that it'll take longer for wealth to even out, and political representation to even out. But trying to short-circuit the process is counter productive in the long run.


As I started off in this post, I'm not talking for every white male, but the ones that I described. You can't deny that these people exist. Society will never be fully equal, nor should we fight for it. As I mentioned in the SSM arguments, there is a difference between equality and fairness. As long as people fight for "equality", there will never be an end. The only thing we can do as society is make it as fair as possible. Some times, that consist of creating unequal rules and practices.

History has already made it's mark on the present and the present is far from equal. My original statement, which still stands, is that there is a noticeable percentage of white men who complains every time society decides to tilt against their favor.

If all or even most of the white men had your philosophy, then they would be complaining right now about how they have the advantage in society and would be putting their effort in empowering women and other minorities. The bottom line is that no one outside of your "group" (regardless of what that group might be) cares more about you and your group than the people within your group. So, to pretend otherwise is just silly.



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#113 Feb 22 2011 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
In the interest of brevity, I'll respond to just three points:

Almalieque wrote:

Gbaji wrote:
The fear is that if/when that pendulum swings, it's unlikely that those raised in that very different racial atmosphere will be take the same high road that white men took decades ago.


What high road? Being forced to treat non white males as equal humans?


Yes. That seemingly difficult thing which caused a society made up primarily of white people to change their own rules so that those who were not white would be treated as equal humans.

The question is: If tomorrow, through some strange twist of fate, a single minority group were to hold majorities in all major legislative bodies, would they be as equally concerned about treating whites as equal humans? Can you say for sure?


Quote:
You're confusing what society is trying to teach blacks and latinos vs what the minorities are teaching themselves. Society's answer is to give out hand outs and tilt the pendulum. If you're familiar with black churches, what is taught there is completely different. People are trying to get minorities to NOT rely on hand outs, but to become independent. Instead of taking that job working for someone else business, start your own business, preferably in your own community.


I'm not confused at all. While admittedly a poor sample, given that we always focus on the "best/worst" cases, let me provide you with the following:

Black Principles wrote:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.



This was not something that society forced on blacks. This was a set of principles published and taught as the guiding principles of one of those very black churches you claim aren't teaching this. Want to take a wild guess as to who attended this church?


If those are the values that gain influence among future black leaders, then why should I believe that they will take that high road we talked about earlier? Does anything in that suggest the importance of racial equality? It sure looks like the exact opposite to me.


Quote:
If society teaches self-empowerment and independence, your concern will not be an issue.


Which is exactly why I oppose the idea of entitlement in the first place. We don't teach this. We teach the opposite. And we add a dollop of racism into the mix as well. We're literally raising generations of minority members who believe that they are entitled to any unfair advantage they can get, and justified to use any power they gain to benefit their group at the expense of others.

There's a whole long socio-political argument about why this happens and how it benefits the political forces which create and use this. But the larger point is that it is there and we really ought to be fighting against it. More importantly, it's *not* racist to point this out and to oppose it when it happens. It's not black vs white. It's racism vs non-racism. It's about whether we treat people the same regardless of their skin color, or we treat them differently because of their skin color.


We should all know what the right answer is. But somewhere along the line we created and reinforced the idea that racism itself can and should be defined within the context of race itself. It's bizarre IMO, but that's how it's viewed by many people. But it shouldn't be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Feb 23 2011 at 6:17 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Yes. That seemingly difficult thing which caused a society made up primarily of white people to change their own rules so that those who were not white would be treated as equal humans.


I hate to burst your bubble, but losing a battle is not taking the "high road" . Contrary to popular belief, all white people aren't evil. There were enough decent/good white people who did not believe in treating others as crap along with a percentage of women and other minorities who didn't want to be treated like crap to FIGHT for rights. There was no high road taken, if so, then there wouldn't have been things such as Jim Crow laws.

Gbaji wrote:
The question is: If tomorrow, through some strange twist of fate, a single minority group were to hold majorities in all major legislative bodies, would they be as equally concerned about treating whites as equal humans? Can you say for sure?


That's really a dumb question. Are you saying that there is a connection between legislative power and the ability to not treat others as sub human? As I said, no one cares more about you or your group than someone in your group. So, of course there will be biased interest in particular groups, but that doesn't mean the implementation of considering people 2/3 of a person. That's absurd.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm not confused at all. While admittedly a poor sample, given that we always focus on the "best/worst" cases, let me provide you with the following:

.....

This was not something that society forced on blacks. This was a set of principles published and taught as the guiding principles of one of those very black churches you claim aren't teaching this. Want to take a wild guess as to who attended this church?





You're either confused or in denial, you choose. How many black churches have you attended throughout your life? I'm going to give you the benefit without a doubt that maybe your 20+ years of attending various black churches varies from my 20+ years of attending black churches.


If you're referring to Wright and Obama, then you have no point. Many black panels have openly admitted that while some thoughts are similar, he is extreme. That's the whole reason why he was controversial in the first place.

Gbaji wrote:
If those are the values that gain influence among future black leaders, then why should I believe that they will take that high road we talked about earlier? Does anything in that suggest the importance of racial equality? It sure looks like the exact opposite to me.


Because once again, you're confused. If black people don't support black business, then no one else will. That doesn't mean go out and hang white people from trees and spray them with water hoses. You're just supporting my claim earlier. You are just paranoid when something doesn't favor your way.

In order to be independent and successful, ethnic minorities have to support each other. That's not racism, that's business and economics. That's how you build a community. The alternate would be to rely on others, that creates the "hand out" issue that we discussed earlier.

Gbaji wrote:
Which is exactly why I oppose the idea of entitlement in the first place. We don't teach this. We teach the opposite. And we add a dollop of racism into the mix as well. We're literally raising generations of minority members who believe that they are entitled to any unfair advantage they can get, and justified to use any power they gain to benefit their group at the expense of others.


No, you are simply misinterpreting motives as racists because you don't see people favoring you. Which once again, was my initial claim.

First you say that you're against the "hand out" system. Then you say you're against minorities supporting each other, not taking hand outs. WTF do you want? There is no other alternate, except a combination of the two.

Gbaji wrote:
There's a whole long socio-political argument about why this happens and how it benefits the political forces which create and use this. But the larger point is that it is there and we really ought to be fighting against it. More importantly, it's *not* racist to point this out and to oppose it when it happens. It's not black vs white. It's racism vs non-racism. It's about whether we treat people the same regardless of their skin color, or we treat them differently because of their skin color.


We should all know what the right answer is. But somewhere along the line we created and reinforced the idea that racism itself can and should be defined within the context of race itself. It's bizarre IMO, but that's how it's viewed by many people. But it shouldn't be.


Once again, you're confused.

History has molded today the way it is. We can't change history. You want to operate as if both whites and women with ethnic minorities are all on the same level, so let's just start being equal... It doesn't work that way. White men have been establishing the economy for over 200 years in the U.S. Ethnic minorities just started getting the rights to do the same 50 years ago.

In other words, white men started the race 4 laps ahead, even if the minorities were running the same pace as the white men, they will never catch up. But, every time the pace of "ethnic runners" is faster than their white male counter parts, people like you complain that they are running faster than you... but you forget that you're 4 laps ahead.

So, my claim still stands. While there are some minorities, as with any group of any kind, who wants to play the system, there is no over all shift in power, just a bunch of people complaining because they don't understand what's going on.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#115 Feb 23 2011 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Quote:
The question is: If tomorrow, through some strange twist of fate, a single minority group were to hold majorities in all major legislative bodies, would they be as equally concerned about treating whites as equal humans? Can you say for sure?


Pragmatically, this is a strong argument for having those protections in place. Eventually it WILL happen.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#116 Feb 23 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Almalieque wrote:

In other words, white men started the race 4 laps ahead, even if the minorities were running the same pace as the white men, they will never catch up. But, every time the pace of "ethnic runners" is faster than their white male counter parts, people like you complain that they are running faster than you... but you forget that you're 4 laps ahead.
While I like your analogy better than gbaji's, you both seem to see the goal as equal but different. I would think that the goal would be to eliminate the race between races with respect to opportunity.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#117 Feb 23 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but losing a battle is not taking the "high road" . Contrary to popular belief, all white people aren't evil. There were enough decent/good white people who did not believe in treating others as crap along with a percentage of women and other minorities who didn't want to be treated like crap to FIGHT for rights. There was no high road taken, if so, then there wouldn't have been things such as Jim Crow laws.


But that's the point. Over time, a sufficiently high percentage of white males saw the wrongness of racism/sexism and worked to eliminate the very things that were benefiting them. My concern, and I feel it's a legitimate one, is that those who currently view themselves as minorities may not have sufficiently high percentages of members who see the wrongness of those same things when they benefit them, and thus will perpetuate racism and sexism within our society.

Quote:
As I said, no one cares more about you or your group than someone in your group.


And my point is twofold:

1. It shouldn't be that way at all (as Elinda correctly states)

2. Had white men viewed it that way, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.


Quote:
If you're referring to Wright and Obama, then you have no point. Many black panels have openly admitted that while some thoughts are similar, he is extreme. That's the whole reason why he was controversial in the first place.


I would wager he was controversial because his church was placed in the spotlight. Do you think that if Obama had not been a member of that church that we'd ever have heard about Wright? Even given the political aspects of this, it took nearly 6 months after editorials were written and videos began surfacing about Wrights extreme views before it suddenly "broke" into the mainstream media. The desire to sweep this aspect of racial politics under the rug was pretty darn strong.

Obviously, I'm not saying that all black churches are this way. That's absurd. But enough are to be a concern IMO. Also, it's not necessary for people with those views to be in the majority, only that the rest of the population not do anything about it. Which is why the unwillingness to even acknowledge this, or talk about it or even to insist it doesn't exist at all is pretty darn problematic.

Quote:
Because once again, you're confused. If black people don't support black business, then no one else will.


What!? Are you kidding? When I go into a store or a restaurant I don't pay any attention at all to the skin color of the person who owns the business or the people who work in the business. I care about the product or service I'm receiving. That's it. Has it occurred to you that it's the very attitude you express that is the problem?

Quote:
In order to be independent and successful, ethnic minorities have to support each other. That's not racism, that's business and economics. That's how you build a community.


A community which apparently excludes "non-minorities", which I guess is just white men. And you think I'm being paranoid?

To be independent and successful, all anyone has to do is run a good fair business. Provide a good value and people will pay you for it. There is no need to involve race or ethnicity at all. It's exactly the idea you are expressing which I'm saying is wrong. No one should think that their only route to success is to band together with people who look like themselves. That's racism, and it's wrong.

Quote:
The alternate would be to rely on others, that creates the "hand out" issue that we discussed earlier.


If you think that's the only alternative, then you have a sad sad world view.

Quote:
No, you are simply misinterpreting motives as racists because you don't see people favoring you.


No. I'm attributing motives as racist because I see people favoring those who are of any skin color other than mine. Given that you just said that this is what minorities should do to be successful, you've somewhat proven my point. What exactly do you mean by "ethnic minorities have to support one another"? And I don't mean in some philosophical way. I mean in day to day interaction. What does that mean? Because it sure sounds a **** of a lot like racism to me.


Quote:
First you say that you're against the "hand out" system. Then you say you're against minorities supporting each other, not taking hand outs. WTF do you want? There is no other alternate, except a combination of the two.


Again, I completely disagree that those are the only two alternatives. You might want to re-evaluate your assumptions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Feb 23 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

In other words, white men started the race 4 laps ahead, even if the minorities were running the same pace as the white men, they will never catch up. But, every time the pace of "ethnic runners" is faster than their white male counter parts, people like you complain that they are running faster than you... but you forget that you're 4 laps ahead.
While I like your analogy better than gbaji's, you both seem to see the goal as equal but different. I would think that the goal would be to eliminate the race between races with respect to opportunity.


Yea, that's unrealistic. I'll explain further below..

Gbaji wrote:
But that's the point. Over time, a sufficiently high percentage of white males saw the wrongness of racism/sexism and worked to eliminate the very things that were benefiting them. My concern, and I feel it's a legitimate one, is that those who currently view themselves as minorities may not have sufficiently high percentages of members who see the wrongness of those same things when they benefit them, and thus will perpetuate racism and sexism within our society.


There wasn't a "sufficiently high percentage of white males" who changed their ways. Things such as Jim Crow laws is evident of that. There just so happen to be enough white men who ALWAYS believed it was wrong, along with women (you know, the other 50% of the population) with ethnic minorities. Even if there were some converted white men, there was no high road taken, because they were literally forced to do so by the other groups who fought against it.

In summary, there was no "high road".. I'm actually astonished that you believe such nonsense.. Till this day, I would bet that out of all of the demographics, white males probably make up most of the racist people in the U.S.

Gbaji wrote:
And my point is twofold:

1. It shouldn't be that way at all (as Elinda correctly states)

2. Had white men viewed it that way, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.



1. I'm sorry, I live in reality. There shouldn't be any world violence either, but world peace... so what's your point? You're basing your argument off of something totally unrealistic. The U.S. is more concerned about the U.S than Japan. Tennessee is more concerned with Tennessee than Arkansas. Shelby County (TN) is more concerned with Shelby County (TN) than Tipton County (TN). The Jones family is more concerned with the Jones family than the Smith family, so forth and so on.

This is life, to pretend that it will or should work any other way is silly.

2. That has to be one of the most illogical non-trolling comments I've read on this forum. There is no freakin' correlation between wanting to support your friends and family within your own community and the concept of slavery. Since you feel so confident about it. Explain to me how preferring business with a friend or family member equates to slavery and women not be able to vote. I want to see you try.

Once again, you're just complaining because something isn't going in your favor. This threat that you speak of, doesn't not exist.

Gbaji wrote:
I would wager he was controversial because his church was placed in the spotlight. Do you think that if Obama had not been a member of that church that we'd ever have heard about Wright? Even given the political aspects of this, it took nearly 6 months after editorials were written and videos began surfacing about Wrights extreme views before it suddenly "broke" into the mainstream media. The desire to sweep this aspect of racial politics under the rug was pretty darn strong.


Uhhh.. how many politicians actually go to church or have attended church in the past? I would bet the majority. Where are these churches in the "spot light"? They're not, because they weren't considered to be ran by nut-cases. If Wright weren't a nut case, then there wouldn't have been any controversy.

Gbaji wrote:
Obviously, I'm not saying that all black churches are this way. That's absurd. But enough are to be a concern IMO. Also, it's not necessary for people with those views to be in the majority, only that the rest of the population not do anything about it. Which is why the unwillingness to even acknowledge this, or talk about it or even to insist it doesn't exist at all is pretty darn problematic.


Again, what is your experience with black churches? At this point, it appears that you're just making stuff up.. I've attended black churches all of my life and cross checked my churches with friends' churches and they were all the same.

Gbaji wrote:
What!? Are you kidding? When I go into a store or a restaurant I don't pay any attention at all to the skin color of the person who owns the business or the people who work in the business. I care about the product or service I'm receiving. That's it. Has it occurred to you that it's the very attitude you express that is the problem?


I'm talking about the big picture. Rather you want to accept it or not, it's on you. That's part of the problem. You, as a white male, go to your white clothing sale store, watch your white television shows, probably listen to music by white artists and probably go to hang out in places where your white friends hang out, which is probably owned by another white person.

That's absolutely nothing wrong with that, that's life, but you fail to comprehend that the black entrepreneurs have a much less population to work with in order to be as successful.

Studies have shown that the average black movie opens up in a significant less amount of theaters than the average white movie. How many white people do you think saw "Colored Girls"? Is that racist? No, but right from the start, there is a significant difference on the number of viewers. The reality is, a black person is much more likely to see a movie with a full black cast than a white person and vice versa. Because of the difference in U.S. population, if only a few black people go see a black cast movie, then basically only a few people saw the movie.


If you truly want to get out of this cycle, then the onus is on white people to go see more black movies, buy black clothes, go to black barber shops, move into black neighborhoods and open up businesses in the community, etc. Guess what, that isn't happening, so now the onus is back on the minorities to support each other.

Gbaji wrote:
A community which apparently excludes "non-minorities", which I guess is just white men. And you think I'm being paranoid?

To be independent and successful, all anyone has to do is run a good fair business. Provide a good value and people will pay you for it. There is no need to involve race or ethnicity at all. It's exactly the idea you are expressing which I'm saying is wrong. No one should think that their only route to success is to band together with people who look like themselves. That's racism, and it's wrong.


Uh.. I don't know where you live or where you have lived, but in my experiences, communities are more segregated than they are integrated. Once again, I think you're living in a fantasy world. There's no paranoia. I'm not saying that this was done intentionally or out of racism, but it is what it is. You just have to accept the fact that there are communities that are mostly one ethnicity.

The simple fact that you think it's so easy as just "providing a good value and people will pay you for it", is evident that you're confused. People need money first. There are neighborhoods where people don't have the money to buy goods that they want. This often causes people to go to drugs and violence for the means of money, which results in increasing property insurance for businesses.

That was just an example. I'm not saying that's true for everywhere, but there are so many variables involved than simply opening up a business of goods that someone wants.

Gabji wrote:


If you think that's the only alternative, then you have a sad sad world view.


Then state one... What I've mentioned is the following..

1. Take care of yourself
2. Being taken care of.
3. A mixture of the two.

I would love to see you come up with something different.

Gbaji wrote:
No. I'm attributing motives as racist because I see people favoring those who are of any skin color other than mine. Given that you just said that this is what minorities should do to be successful, you've somewhat proven my point. What exactly do you mean by "ethnic minorities have to support one another"? And I don't mean in some philosophical way. I mean in day to day interaction. What does that mean? Because it sure sounds a **** of a lot like racism to me.


That's because you fail to understand the term racist. Favoritism isn't racism. Racism is the belief that one race is superior and or inferior to another race.

Let me rephrase my sentence then. You should support your family and friends who live in your neighborhoods and have the same interests as you, who just so happen to be of the same ethnicity 95% of the time.

I'm just not going to sugar coat anything. It's not racist to want to support my family and friends. Well guess what, they are more than not going to be people of your same culture.

Until white America puts an invested interest into ethnic minority projects, the onus is on the ethnic minorities to support their own projects because they will disappear other wise.

Gbaji wrote:
Again, I completely disagree that those are the only two alternatives. You might want to re-evaluate your assumptions.


Again, I live in reality. If you believe there is an other alternate then, supporting yourself, being supported or a combination of the two, then provide another alternate.

Here's homework for you..

Do you, or anyone (white) you know and how many, do the following?

1. Buy TCB grease, shine spray?
2. Buy Du-rags?
3. Read JET, Vibe, Essence, King magazine.
4. watches BET or TVOne
5. go to see all black cast movies or plays?
6. Go to black barber shops or hair salons?
7. Listens to the Tom Joyner Morning Show or The Steve Harvey Show?
8. Looks at Ed Gordon, Tavis Smiley, etc?
9. Attends black churches?
10. Believe O.J Simpson is innocent....


Edited, Feb 24th 2011 3:43am by Almalieque

Edited, Feb 24th 2011 3:55am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#119 Feb 23 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
There wasn't a "sufficiently high percentage of white males" who changed their ways. Things such as Jim Crow laws is evident of that. There just so happen to be enough white men who ALWAYS believed it was wrong, along with women (you know, the other 50% of the population) with ethnic minorities. Even if there were some converted white men, there was no high road taken, because they were literally forced to do so by the other groups who fought against it.


You're kidding, right? So no cultural perception changes occurred among white males between the 1890s and the 1960s which maybe had something to do with the whole civil rights movement? You get that Jim Crow laws were created right after slavery was abolished, right? But there was a large amount of time between that and the civil rights movement. What changed? Opinions about racism among white men changed. Not all of them. Not everywhere. But enough so that when White America saw and read about the things going on in the South instead of thinking it's someone else's problem, they stood up and condemned those things. That didn't happen a century earlier.

There was a "high road" taken. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. If it had not happened, we would still have slavery. I'm not sure why you don't get this. Do you think that ethnic minorities "forced" the white majority to change their laws, but not their opinions? That just seems incredibly narrow minded to me.


Quote:
1. I'm sorry, I live in reality. There shouldn't be any world violence either, but world peace... so what's your point? You're basing your argument off of something totally unrealistic. The U.S. is more concerned about the U.S than Japan. Tennessee is more concerned with Tennessee than Arkansas. Shelby County (TN) is more concerned with Shelby County (TN) than Tipton County (TN). The Jones family is more concerned with the Jones family than the Smith family, so forth and so on.


And yet, despite this, white men who had all the power they needed to continue to oppress minorities via a rigged legal system, over time choose consistently to eliminate those unfair things their own ancestors put in place. If they had chosen to only care about themselves and their own ethnic group, this would not have happened. That's the "high road" I'm talking about. You say that the world can't be like that, yet the very "cause" you argue for requires that it has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future.

Quote:
This is life, to pretend that it will or should work any other way is silly.


And yet, for some reason, it did. Or, I should say, that white males did it. The question I'm proposing to you is this: If black males were to find themselves in the same position of power tomorrow, do you think they would similarly choose to give up that advantage in the name of equality? To me, based on the rhetoric I hear coming from black political leaders, I don't hold high hopes for this.

Do you? If so, why? You insist that it's normal for groups not to do this, but seem to also insist that this isn't something for anyone else to be concerned about. Which is it?

Quote:
There is no freakin' correlation between wanting to support your friends and family within your own community and the concept of slavery. Since you feel so confident about it. Explain to me how preferring business with a friend or family member equates to slavery and women not be able to vote. I want to see you try.


You didn't say "friends and family". You said ethnic minorities. Don't change the language after the fact, please. And yes, there is a pretty significant correlation between the ideology of someone choosing to help out those of their own ethnicity ahead of others, and the same ideology which justified slavery. At the end of the day, you're choosing to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. It's not about the degree, it's about the criteria being used to discriminate.

Quote:
Uhhh.. how many politics actually go to church or have attended church in the past? I would bet the majority. Where are these churches in the "spot light"? They're not, because they weren't considered to be ran by nut-cases. If Wright weren't a nut case, then there wouldn't have been any controversy.


Missing the point completely. If Obama hadn't attended that particular church, none of us would have known about it. How many churches are there? How many elected politicians? So how many more churches preach the same message but didn't happen to have a major political figure attending them? And it's not just about churches. You're fixated on the details and missing the bigger picture. I've seen the same opinions expressed by professors and politicians (although the politicians are more careful to moderate their language) as well.

Quote:
You, as a white male, go to your white clothing sale store, watch your white television shows, probably listen to music by white artists and probably go to hang out in places where your white friends hang out, which is probably owned by another white person.


But I don't go to that particular store because it's a "white store", whatever that means. I don't watch shows because they are "white shows". And I don't listen to music because it's by "white artists". I listen to music I like, and go to stores that have what I need to buy, and watch shows that have plots and characters that I enjoy watching. I don't take into account the skin color of the people involved with those things.

Quote:
That's absolutely nothing wrong with that, that's life, but you fail to comprehend that the black entrepreneurs have a much less population to work with in order to be as successful.


Then perhaps they shouldn't be trying to pursue only a black audience or customer base? Has this occurred to you that what you are calling "helping other minorities" (presumably meaning their own minority group) is a self caused segregation?

Quote:
Studies have shown that the average black movie opens up in a significant less amount of theaters than the average white movie. How many white people do you think saw "Colored Girls"? Is that racist? No, but right from the start, there is a significant difference on the number of viewers. The reality is, a black person is much more likely to see a movie with a full black cast than a white person and vice versa. Because of the difference in U.S. population, if only a few black people go see a black cast movie, then basically only a few people saw the movie.


What point are you making here? If a film is specifically made to appeal to one ethnically defined audience, then that's a choice made by the makers of the film. I'm not racist for *not* choosing to see it, or even not being interested in it. I'd suggest that the makers of the film might be being a bit narrow in their presentation, but that's their choice. I didn't make them do that. There's nothing preventing a black producer or director or actors from making or staring in films that aren't aimed just at a black audience. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote:
If you truly want to get out of this cycle, then the onus is on white people to go see more black movies, buy black clothes, go to black barber shops, move into black neighborhoods and open up businesses in the community, etc. Guess what, that isn't happening, so now the onus is back on the minorities to support each other.


Wow. Just wow. How about not insisting on creating something different, then labeling it "black X", and then complaining when only a narrow segment of society are interested in those things?

If we want to get out of this cycle, we should stop deliberately inserting race into things which shouldn't naturally care about them. Clothes aren't "black". Music isn't "black". Shops aren't "black". They only become labeled as such when people decide to create some kind of difference and then associate a race to that difference. It's completely artificial. How about we not do that? Why not just have music, and clothes, and barber shops, and not label them?

Wouldn't that be different?

Quote:
Then state one... What I've mentioned is the following..

1. Take care of yourself
2. Being taken care of.
3. A mixture of the two.

I would love to see you come up with something different.


That's not what you said. You're playing word games again. You didn't say "take care of yourself". You said "take care of those who are of the same ethnicity as yourself". Those are not the same thing.

How about "treat everyone the same regardless of their skin color"? Isn't that a much better alternative? I think so.

Quote:
That's because you fail to understand the term racist. Racism isn't favoritism. Racism is the belief that one race is superior and or inferior to another race.

Let me rephrase my sentence then. You should support your family and friends who live in your neighborhoods and have the same interests as you, who just so happen to be of the same ethnicity 95% of the time.

I'm just not going to sugar coat anything. It's not racist to want to support my family and friends. Well guess what, they are more than not going to be people of your same culture.

Until white America puts an invested interest into ethnic minority projects, the onus is on the ethnic minorities to support their own projects because they will disappear other wise.


Wow. I keep thinking at some point you'll realize that your own position is the one that is racist, but maybe that's too much to ask for.

First off. Racism isn't just about superiority, although that's often a component of racism. Racism is expressed by the act of treating people differently based on their race. Period. It doesn't really matter why you're doing it. And let me point out that it's not white people who label things "black clothes", or "black films", or "black shops". Black people self label and self segregate themselves in this way. I happen to think it's incredibly unhealthy from a socio-cultural point of view, but this behavior is often labeled as an expression of "back pride" and defended on the basis of some kind of civil rights.

Secondly, I'll point out that you have again changed the words you used. You didn't say "friends and family". You said minorities should support minorities (with the implication that its ok to limit this to your own ethnic minority group). That's a completely different thing. You originally were saying that it's perfectly ok for a black person to choose to help a complete stranger who is black but to not do the same for a complete stranger who is white. You have further justified this by some convoluted thinking that white America somehow owes this to everyone else, so everyone else is justified to use racist methods to benefit themselves at white America's expense.


I get this. I really do. In fact, it's exactly the mentality I was talking about from the beginning. I'm well aware that the very idea you are putting forth exists strongly among many minority groups. My original statement was that this is dangerous and harmful in the long run because once those minority groups gain political power, they will not likely change those racist ways. They will instead continue to punish white America for its past sins long after the scales have tipped the other way.

You're really just illustrating my point. The assumption that racism is acceptable when committed by a group labeled as a minority is very strong. My point is that this is still racism, and we ought to be fighting against that just as hard as we fought against it when Jim Crow laws were in effect. If one is wrong, then so is the other. You are just blinded to this because you've presumably been taught about racism from the lens of current political power and not in an abstract sense. I happen to think that's incredibly short sighted though.

Racism is racism and is wrong no matter who's doing it or why.

Quote:
Do you, or anyone (white) you know and how many, do the following?

1. Buy TCB grease, shine spray?
2. Buy Du-rags?
3. Read JET, Vibe, Essence, King magazine.
4. watches BET or TVOne
5. go to see all black cast movies or plays?
6. Go to black barber shops or hair salons?
7. Listens to the Tom Joyner Morning Show or The Steve Harvey Show?
8. Looks at Ed Gordon, Tavis Smiley, etc?
9. Attends black churches?
10. Believe O.J Simpson is innocent....


The very fact that you think this list is important shows how warped your viewpoint on this subject is. Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white" everything. It's incredibly telling (and funny as ****) that you think that I'm somehow racist if I *don't* watch BET, or read JET, but don't see the racism inherent in that very assumption.


Wow. Just wow...

Edited, Feb 23rd 2011 5:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Feb 23 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
What is your experiences in the black churches.. You have yet answered this question.

Gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? So no cultural perception changes occurred among white males between the 1890s and the 1960s which maybe had something to do with the whole civil rights movement? You get that Jim Crow laws were created right after slavery was abolished, right? But there was a large amount of time between that and the civil rights movement. What changed? Opinions about racism among white men changed. Not all of them. Not everywhere. But enough so that when White America saw and read about the things going on in the South instead of thinking it's someone else's problem, they stood up and condemned those things. That didn't happen a century earlier.

There was a "high road" taken. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. If it had not happened, we would still have slavery. I'm not sure why you don't get this. Do you think that ethnic minorities "forced" the white majority to change their laws, but not their opinions? That just seems incredibly narrow minded to me.


Well, we have to agree to disagree. I don't consider being FORCED to do something as a high road. You're severely underestimating the woman and ethnic population of the country..... not surprising though...

Gbaji wrote:
There was a "high road" taken. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. If it had not happened, we would still have slavery. I'm not sure why you don't get this. Do you think that ethnic minorities "forced" the white majority to change their laws, but not their opinions? That just seems incredibly narrow minded to me.


No, I believe the 14% black population with the overlapping 50% woman population along with the percentage of white men who weren't D-bags forced the white men in charge of making laws to change their laws. Minds and hearts did not change, hence once again, Jim Crow laws.

Gbaji wrote:
And yet, despite this, white men who had all the power they needed to continue to oppress minorities via a rigged legal system, over time choose consistently to eliminate those unfair things their own ancestors put in place. If they had chosen to only care about themselves and their own ethnic group, this would not have happened. That's the "high road" I'm talking about. You say that the world can't be like that, yet the very "cause" you argue for requires that it has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future.


WTF are you talking about? Again, it wasn't the racist white men who made these changes. It was everyone else who FORCED these changes. I hate history and I know this, surely you must know this. If those civil right pioneers and organizations such as NAACP, which originated with white people, didn't exist, I assure you, today would be very different. For you to believe this nonsense that the racist white men "learned the error in their ways" is beyond ridiculous when there still exists the Klan, racial profiling, etc.

So, you need to get off your high horse in the belief that racist white men is the cause of this change and give the necessary credit to the civil right activists who really made these changes. This is a world wide concept.

Gbaji wrote:
And yet, for some reason, it did. Or, I should say, that white males did it. The question I'm proposing to you is this: If black males were to find themselves in the same position of power tomorrow, do you think they would similarly choose to give up that advantage in the name of equality? To me, based on the rhetoric I hear coming from black political leaders, I don't hold high hopes for this.

Do you? If so, why? You insist that it's normal for groups not to do this, but seem to also insist that this isn't something for anyone else to be concerned about. Which is it?



Read above.. Your talk is insulting. Civil right activists (white, black, male, female) forced theses changes, not racist and sexist white men.

Life doesn't work that way. No random country is going to give us goods over their own country unless there's something in it for them. Period. You can say what you want, but that's reality.


Gbaji wrote:

You didn't say "friends and family". You said ethnic minorities. Don't change the language after the fact, please. And yes, there is a pretty significant correlation between the ideology of someone choosing to help out those of their own ethnicity ahead of others, and the same ideology which justified slavery. At the end of the day, you're choosing to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. It's not about the degree, it's about the criteria being used to discriminate.

[.....]


That's not what you said. You're playing word games again. You didn't say "take care of yourself". You said "take care of those who are of the same ethnicity as yourself". Those are not the same thing.

How about "treat everyone the same regardless of their skin color"? Isn't that a much better alternative? I think so.


That's why I clarified to you and said that I wasn't going to sugarcoat it to you. You're under this misconception of racism. Your family IS your race. Your friends are more than likely your race as well. Taking care of the people in your community who are taking care of you is taking care of yourself.

Gbaji wrote:
Missing the point completely. If Obama hadn't attended that particular church, none of us would have known about it. How many churches are there? How many elected politicians? So how many more churches preach the same message but didn't happen to have a major political figure attending them? And it's not just about churches. You're fixated on the details and missing the bigger picture. I've seen the same opinions expressed by professors and politicians (although the politicians are more careful to moderate their language) as well.


I'm not missing the point, you just took a detour. You stated that black churches are like Reverend Wright.

I responded that no, Reverend Wright is extreme and that's the only reason why he was in the media in the first place.

You countered to say, "no, it's because President Obama went there".

I countered to say, "no, it's because Rev. Wright is a nut case". The fact that President Obama went there, opened the doors for the spot light, but the simple fact that he was a nut case, put him on the spot light.

Gbaji wrote:
But I don't go to that particular store because it's a "white store", whatever that means. I don't watch shows because they are "white shows". And I don't listen to music because it's by "white artists". I listen to music I like, and go to stores that have what I need to buy, and watch shows that have plots and characters that I enjoy watching. I don't take into account the skin color of the people involved with those things.


Exactly, and it just so happens that they are all supported by white people. That's just part of life. It isn't race driven. So, if everything that is stereotypically enjoyed by race x isn't supported by race x, then those things will go away. It's really just that simple.

That's like opening a store that sells turbans and middle eastern clothing in an area with no middle eastern population. Do you honestly think that business will stay open? Now move that store to a community with a high middle eastern population, do you think business will change?
What if you're in the fist scenario and you're the only person buying from that store, are you telling me that you wouldn't be concerned that it might close down?

It's the same concept. I'm just not sugar coating anything.... I label music primarily made by white people as "white music" and music primarily made by black people as "black music". There is no such thing as either, but only for simplicity of discussion, because at the end of the day, it is what it is.

Gbaji wrote:
Then perhaps they shouldn't be trying to pursue only a black audience or customer base? Has this occurred to you that what you are calling "helping other minorities" (presumably meaning their own minority group) is a self caused segregation?


Read above... It's called doing business. Until white people start selling things like turbans and du-rags, it's an open market left void. Someone has to sell it. Ironically, that's a market that the Koreans have taken up as an example. It isn't minorities creating the segregation, it's the white majority by not including the minority in their sells.

Gbaji wrote:
What point are you making here? If a film is specifically made to appeal to one ethnically defined audience, then that's a choice made by the makers of the film. I'm not racist for *not* choosing to see it, or even not being interested in it. I'd suggest that the makers of the film might be being a bit narrow in their presentation, but that's their choice. I didn't make them do that. There's nothing preventing a black producer or director or actors from making or staring in films that aren't aimed just at a black audience. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.


You're proving my point exactly. According to you, there shouldn't be black or white, just be. Yet, you consider a movie with a full black cast as a movie specifically made to appeal to one ethnicity. Did you ever consider that the director just filmed a movie where the cast just so happened to be black? In either case, it doesn't matter. The outcome will still be the same, white people will probably not go to see it.

I'm not sure why you keep throwing "racism" around.. No one is claiming that. I've already explained to you how you don't know the definition of the word. Racism is the belief that one race is inferior or superior to another race. So, just because you made a preference of something, doesn't make you racist. So, please stop making this accusation.

Gbaji wrote:
Wow. Just wow. How about not insisting on creating something different, then labeling it "black X", and then complaining when only a narrow segment of society are interested in those things?

If we want to get out of this cycle, we should stop deliberately inserting race into things which shouldn't naturally care about them. Clothes aren't "black". Music isn't "black". Shops aren't "black". They only become labeled as such when people decide to create some kind of difference and then associate a race to that difference. It's completely artificial. How about we not do that? Why not just have music, and clothes, and barber shops, and not label them?

Wouldn't that be different?


Again, when the white population embraces these things, then there wouldn't be a need for the segregation. You, my friend, are severely confused.

You don't even understand the concept of something being "black" and yet you expect me to believe that you're able to provide or meet the needs of black people?

So, you are against men and women's shampoo, soap, cologne, perfume, etc.? Really? I mean, there is absolutely no need for the segregation other than the stereotypical wants, needs and desires. It's the same concept.

Gbaji wrote:
Wow. I keep thinking at some point you'll realize that your own position is that one that is racist, but maybe that's too much to ask for.

First off. Racism isn't just about superiority, although that's often a component of racism. Racism is expressed by the act of treating people differently based on their race. Period.


FALSE

You're making up definitions to words to suit your argument. There's a reason why the words such as prejudice, stereotypical, biased, etc. exist. It is possible to be prejudice and not racist.

Gbaji wrote:
Period. It doesn't really matter why you're doing it. And let me point out that it's not white people who label things "black clothes", or "black films", or "black shops". Black people self label and self segregate themselves in this way. I happen to think it's incredibly unhealthy from a socio-cultural point of view, but this behavior is often labeled as an expression of "back pride" and defended on the basis of some kind of civil rights.


o.O? Really man.. It's labeled by society for who ever participates in it. Ever heard the terms "chick-flick" or "Asian food"? Asians typically don't call their own food "Asian Food" unless they are making some sort of comparison to "European food" or "American Food". All of these types of food are simply labeled food in their respective areas.

Gbaji wrote:
Secondly, I'll point out that you have again changed the words you used. You didn't say "friends and family". You said minorities should support minorities (with the implication that its ok to limit this to your own ethnic minority group). That's a completely different thing. You originally were saying that it's perfectly ok for a black person to choose to help a complete stranger who is black but to not do the same for a complete stranger who is white. You have further justified this by some convoluted thinking that white America somehow owes this to everyone else, so everyone else is justified to use racist methods to benefit themselves at white America's expense.


Are we even reading the same forum? WTF are you talking about? You are so way off base it's ridiculous.

1. I've already stated that your family is your race and that your friends are more than likely of the same race. So, while there is a possibility that they are not the same, the probability is low enough that for simplicity is easier to say minorities.

2. No where did I imply that it was some what wrong to want to do business with a white stranger, but it's more beneficial to do business with people that are going to bring their success back into your community and family, which according to #1 above, is more than likely the people of your own race.

If you want to see more movies like "Colored Girls", you have to support it and other like movies to create a market for it. Going out to see Harry Potter will not give revenue to the film team of "Colored Girls". It's the same concept.

You're making this subject overly sensitive, when it doesn't have to be.

[quote=Gbaji]I get this. I really do. In fact, it's exactly the mentality I was talking about from the beginning. I'm well aware that the very idea you are putting forth exists strongly among many minority groups. My original statement was that this is dangerous and harmful in the long run because once those minority groups gain political power, they will not likely change those racist ways. They will instead continue to punish white America for its past sins long after the scales have tipped the other way. [/quote]

You obviously don't get it. Besides the obvious wrong statements that you have made, if you did understand it, you'll realize that not doing it is dangerous and harmful.

Your last sentence translates this to me "Keep the Black man down because if he gets power, then they'll take their revenge on the White man". And... you wonder why I wouldn't listen to you.. are you even listening to yourself? You're supporting my argument.. This isn't about equality, you're paranoid of not being in total power. Else, your statement should have read "We need to assist in the gain of power with all minorities to make up for lost time".

[quote=Gbaji]You're really just illustrating my point. The assumption that racism is acceptable when committed by a group labeled as a minority is very strong. My point is that this is still racism, and we ought to be fighting against that just as hard as we fought against it when Jim Crow laws were in effect. If one is wrong, then so is the other. You are just blinded to this because you've presumably been taught about racism from the lens of current political power and not in an abstract sense. I happen to think that's incredibly short sighted though.

Racism is racism and is wrong no matter who's doing it or why. [/quote]


I totally agree, except I'm not talking about racism. You just fail to understand the term.

[quote=Gbaji]
The very fact that you think this list is important shows how warped your viewpoint on this subject is. Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white" everything. It's incredibly telling (and funny as ****) that you think that I'm somehow racist if I *don't* watch BET, or read JET, but don't see the racism inherent in that very assumption.


Wow. Just wow... [/quote]



Read above.. WTF did you see anything about racism? I asked a simple question. This is evident that you're just paranoid above belief.. This has nothing to do with racism, but the simple fact that if the average white person isn't involved with this stuff, who's going to provide these things?

You keep claiming that minorities shouldn't support each other, yet you probably don't even know half the stuff on that list. So, why do you expect for the black population to sit there and wait for the white population (who is probably ignorant on many of these things) to create these markets? Especially, if they can get in the market themselves.

I think your problem is that you've lived in a bubble and don't realize what's going on. Maybe you should go out and ask people questions in an unbiased way. Maybe a face to face will get you to understand better.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#121 Feb 23 2011 at 11:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
What is your experiences in the black churches.. You have yet answered this question.


It's a stupid question. It doesn't matter. I could just as easily quote any of a number of black leaders instead and show you equally shocking statements which largely go ignored and non-condemned by those who claim to be opposed to racism.

Quote:
Well, we have to agree to disagree. I don't consider being FORCED to do something as a high road. You're severely underestimating the woman and ethnic population of the country..... not surprising though...


You are severely overestimating them. I know this is hard for you to grasp, but absent a significant shift of racial acceptance among white people in general (men and women) we would never have ended slavery, and certainly not have moved past Jim Crow and to the eventual civil rights movement. You are deluded if you think otherwise. White men held all the power. They could have chosen to keep it if they wanted to. They chose not to. And that choice was largely based on a moral examination of their own actions. It was forced on *some*, but it was forced on them by other white men.

Quote:
WTF are you talking about? Again, it wasn't the racist white men who made these changes. It was everyone else who FORCED these changes.


Yes. Which included a very large percentage of white men who were *not* racist. Not only were they not racist, but they choose to step up and fight against racism within their own group. If they had acted as you say the minorities of today should act (support your own group), this would not have happened.


Can't you see that?

Quote:
Read above.. Your talk is insulting. Civil right activists (white, black, male, female) forced theses changes, not racist and sexist white men.


You're changing the words again. When did I say that it was "racist white men" who made those changes? What happened is that over time the percentage of white men who were racist declined. Get it? The number of white men who embraced the idea of using any advantage you have to benefit your own group at the expense of others declined and was replaced by a majority of white men who believed that we should make the rules even for everyone.

Get it? When black people as a whole do *not* stand up and condemn people like Wright they are not displaying the same moral sensibilities that white people did during the century between slavery and civil rights. When instead, they embrace such things as a sign of racial "pride" and think that this is all perfectly fine, then they are not only not fighting racism, but they are encouraging it.

How do you not get this?

Quote:
That's why I clarified to you and said that I wasn't going to sugarcoat it to you. You're under this misconception of racism. Your family IS your race. Your friends are more than likely your race as well. Taking care of the people in your community who are taking care of you is taking care of yourself.


Huh? So every white person is my family? I've never looked at it that way. Ever. My family are the people I'm related to, either by blood or marriage. My friends are the people I've grown attached to in various ways over my life. Neither of those have much to do with skin color.

That you view it that way tells a lot about you though. Let me give you a hint: You are a the one acting in a racist manner.

Quote:
I'm not missing the point, you just took a detour. You stated that black churches are like Reverend Wright.


I made a much larger and broad point than that. I held up Wright as an example of the kind of racism which exists in some black churches. I didn't say that all black churches were like his. Do you just ignore the words people post that you don't want to think about or something?

Quote:
I responded that no, Reverend Wright is extreme and that's the only reason why he was in the media in the first place.


Do you think he's the only person that extreme? Do you think he's the only black leader who is that extreme? Do we ignore leaders of the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam? They don't count either?

The broader point is that he was not condemned by very many black leaders. The media jumped up and down about him, and then he got invited to speak for the NAACP, and all was fine again. Where exactly was the condemnation of his words? It kinda got lost in there somewhere. The point is that there are people who say these sorts of things, but because they are members of a minority their words are forgiven no matter how racist they would be considered if they were not. Wright is not unique. He just had a spotlight put on his church because Obama attended it. If Obama hadn't attended that church none of us would know who he is, and in all probability that list of 12 principles which used to be on his church's website would still be there.

Quote:
Exactly, and it just so happens that they are all supported by white people. That's just part of life. It isn't race driven. So, if everything that is stereotypically enjoyed by race x isn't supported by race x, then those things will go away. It's really just that simple.

That's like opening a store that sells turbans and middle eastern clothing in an area with no middle eastern population. Do you honestly think that business will stay open? Now move that store to a community with a high middle eastern population, do you think business will change?
What if you're in the fist scenario and you're the only person buying from that store, are you telling me that you wouldn't be concerned that it might close down?


I'm not sure what your point is here. I go to a BBQ place in my old neighborhood that's owned and run by a black family. Why? Because the food is great. I used to work at a fast food place owned by an Iranian family. I still occasionally swing by there to grab their kabobs (yum!). Why? Because it's good food. I don't think it's unusual for a white person to work at a Chinese Food restaurant anymore than I think it's strange for a chinese kid to work at a McDonalds. And frankly, the fact that you seem to identify people so strongly by their race and/or ethnicity is bizarre.

Do you actually think that everyone must conform to some imposed stereotype? Because that's how you're coming across.

Quote:
It's the same concept. I'm just not sugar coating anything.... I label music primarily made by white people as "white music" and music primarily made by black people as "black music". There is no such thing as either, but only for simplicity of discussion, because at the end of the day, it is what it is.


This is part of your problem then. Stop doing that. Stop labeling people based on racial stereotypes you assume must apply. You then might not be so surprised at a white rapper, or a black country singer, or whatever else doesn't fit your pre-assumed stereotypes. Seriously. The problem is with you and the need to apply racial labels to everything. Some of us don't do that.

Quote:
You're proving my point exactly. According to you, there shouldn't be black or white, just be. Yet, you consider a movie with a full black cast as a movie specifically made to appeal to one ethnicity. Did you ever consider that the director just filmed a movie where the cast just so happened to be black? In either case, it doesn't matter. The outcome will still be the same, white people will probably not go to see it.


Um. No. You made that assumption, not me. I simply said that if a director deliberately sets out to make a "black movie", it's not racism on the part of white people to not flock to go see it. Perhaps he shouldn't do that if he wants a broader audience? Just a thought. What do you think he's doing there?

And white people do go to see films with mostly if not all black casts. Lots of times. What we generally do not enjoy watching are the ones that thump you over the head with the exact kind of racist rhetoric you are spouting right now though. I enjoyed the **** out of Boyz in the Hood. There was literally one 2 minute section of the film that I can't stand though. It's when Lawrence Fishbournes character takes a couple of the guys to an intersection in Compton and Spike Lee channels himself through the character and starts talking about how it's some kind of white conspiracy that there's a gun shop and a liquor store on every street corner and how white people send the drugs and into Compton in order for the black residents to kill each other over them.

Other than that short bit, it's a great film. You get that there's a difference between a film with a primarily minority cast and one which tosses racial rhetoric at the audience? I mean, ****. I've watched just about every Jackie Chan movie made. It never occurred to me to think of them as "Chinese films". Ever think that maybe there's something more to it than just the color of the people who happen to be cast in the film?

Quote:
I'm not sure why you keep throwing "racism" around.. No one is claiming that. I've already explained to you how you don't know the definition of the word. Racism is the belief that one race is inferior or superior to another race. So, just because you made a preference of something, doesn't make you racist. So, please stop making this accusation.


If you choose to benefit one person at the expense of another and you make that choice solely based on the skin color of the people involved, you are being a racist. Seriously. And it's not about "family". Every person who is your skin color isn't your family.

Quote:
Again, when the white population embraces these things, then there wouldn't be a need for the segregation. You, my friend, are severely confused.


That's my point. The white population as a whole did reject the racist ideas you seem to embrace (that you put your own racial group above all others). This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Until other groups learn to act in a non-racial manner, we're going to continue to have racial issues. Again, I'm not saying 100% of all white people are anti-racism. I am saying that racism is vastly less prevalent among white populations and white people in the US as a whole reject institutional racism everywhere they see it.

The problem is that when we oppose that racism where it benefits other groups, we get opposition from those groups and are called racists. It's hugely ironic.

Quote:
You're making up definitions to words to suit your argument. There's a reason why the words such as prejudice, stereotypical, biased, etc. exist. It is possible to be prejudice and not racist.


Sure. Because prejudice is a specific action which could be based upon anything. Racism is a set of actions which have as their primary determinant the color of someone's skin. I know you don't want racism to mean what it does, but if your primary reason for making a decision is someone's skin color, you are being racist. Period. Clinging to a definition of racism which allows the same action to either be or not be racism purely based on the skin color of the person taking the action is also racist. Surely, you can see this? Or not?

[quote][quote]Racism is racism and is wrong no matter who's doing it or why. [/quote]

I totally agree, except I'm not talking about racism. You just fail to understand the term.[/quote]

No you are talking about racism. You just don't realize that what you are saying is good is in fact racist because you've been taught a definition of racism which is itself racist. Don't worry though, you are by no means alone in your position. Which is part of the problem. If people who believed like you do were a tiny minority, you could be safely ignored. But you aren't.


You get that this ties to my original premise, right? If your definition of racism relies on the race of the person performing the act, then it would not be racism if a group that is currently a minority were to gain power and oppress white people, right? I'm presenting a hypothetical case here. But the purpose of the hypothetical case is to get you to examine your own positions. If something is wrong when those in power do it, shouldn't it also be wrong when those not in power do it?

My original argument was that the only way to obtain a truly equal society is to not try to game the system to benefit or harm anyone based on race. And yes, I fully admit that this will make it take longer for historical minorities to "catch up", but not as long as you might think. It's not like the majority or even a tiny minority of white people are benefited because of some long family wealth that they earned in the past and which gives them an unfair advantage today. Most people, absent any racial gaming will perform similarly if they make similar choices and will experience similar results regardless of their race.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2011 9:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Feb 24 2011 at 5:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
This thread has the potential to beat any other thread in word count by page 6.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#123 Feb 24 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's a stupid question. It doesn't matter. I could just as easily quote any of a number of black leaders instead and show you equally shocking statements which largely go ignored and non-condemned by those who claim to be opposed to racism.


So, are you going to answer the question or not? It's stupid of you to say that personal experience doesn't play a part.

Gbaji wrote:
You are severely overestimating them. I know this is hard for you to grasp, but absent a significant shift of racial acceptance among white people in general (men and women) we would never have ended slavery, and certainly not have moved past Jim Crow and to the eventual civil rights movement. You are deluded if you think otherwise. White men held all the power. They could have chosen to keep it if they wanted to. They chose not to. And that choice was largely based on a moral examination of their own actions. It was forced on *some*, but it was forced on them by other white men.


Dude, seriously.. you are implying that all white men were racist. My claim is that there were enough white men who weren't EVER racist. Those racist men didn't change their minds and hearts, they were forced to change policies. Once again, hence Jim Crow laws.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Which included a very large percentage of white men who were *not* racist. Not only were they not racist, but they choose to step up and fight against racism within their own group. If they had acted as you say the minorities of today should act (support your own group), this would not have happened.


Can't you see that?


White people weren't the minority group being shat on.. do you not see the difference? When you already have everything, then you're free to do business how you feel. When you're being shat on, where no one cares about you or your success, then you HAVE to come together, else you will fall. Again, you have just been living in a bubble. I understand how you don't understand, because it appears that you never been in that situation.

When I lived in Korea, Americans were the minority, we had to stick together, because the Korean government/society will always favor their nationals over foreigners. That's the life of being a minority.

Gbaji wrote:
You're changing the words again. When did I say that it was "racist white men" who made those changes? What happened is that over time the percentage of white men who were racist declined. Get it? The number of white men who embraced the idea of using any advantage you have to benefit your own group at the expense of others declined and was replaced by a majority of white men who believed that we should make the rules even for everyone.

Get it? When black people as a whole do *not* stand up and condemn people like Wright they are not displaying the same moral sensibilities that white people did during the century between slavery and civil rights. When instead, they embrace such things as a sign of racial "pride" and think that this is all perfectly fine, then they are not only not fighting racism, but they are encouraging it.

How do you not get this?


1. I'm not changing words, I'm saying that those men did not change their views. I'm also not big on law, but from my understanding, it doesn't take a large percentage of the U.S population to make a social change in law. Again, hence Jim Crow laws. You're painting this picture that the major change points happened when 75% or more of the white men weren't racist.

The number of people doesn't matter, it's WHO the people are that matters. The people with the power. Just because you were a white male, didn't mean you had political power to make a change in the law, you just had a more powerful social status.

It only takes a small amount of people to make a change if you have the right people.

2. Black people have labeled Wright as extreme. What is your point?

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? So every white person is my family? I've never looked at it that way. Ever. My family are the people I'm related to, either by blood or marriage. My friends are the people I've grown attached to in various ways over my life. Neither of those have much to do with skin color.

That you view it that way tells a lot about you though. Let me give you a hint: You are a the one acting in a racist manner.


Man, you are so confused it's ridiculous. Serious question, WTF happened in your life to think so obscure.

I said that your family is your race, not your race is your family. Your parents are probably the same race as you. Your siblings ARE the same race as you. Your cousins, nephews, aunts, uncles, etc. are more than likely the same race as you. Finally, your friends are more than likely mostly of your own race.

I clearly made that distinction with the friends, so I'm not sure why you thought I meant "your race is your family".

Gbaji wrote:
I made a much larger and broad point than that. I held up Wright as an example of the kind of racism which exists in some black churches. I didn't say that all black churches were like his. Do you just ignore the words people post that you don't want to think about or something?


What I'm telling you is that Wright is the minority and if you want to prove a point, then you should focus on something that is more common in the black church, not a nut case. Hence, why I asked your personal experience in black churches. I haven't been to any black church like that nor met anyone who admitted to going to one of those churches. So, maybe, your experiences are different. Else, that point has no value.

Gbaji wrote:

Do you think he's the only person that extreme? Do you think he's the only black leader who is that extreme? Do we ignore leaders of the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam? They don't count either?


Of course not, but just like with the Muslim extremist, they do not represent the "norm". I haven't met a black person who follows or supports Blank Panthers. Most black people I've encounter don't even consider someone who follows the Nation of Islam as a "regular black person".

Gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is here. I go to a BBQ place in my old neighborhood that's owned and run by a black family. Why? Because the food is great. I used to work at a fast food place owned by an Iranian family. I still occasionally swing by there to grab their kabobs (yum!). Why? Because it's good food. I don't think it's unusual for a white person to work at a Chinese Food restaurant anymore than I think it's strange for a chinese kid to work at a McDonalds. And frankly, the fact that you seem to identify people so strongly by their race and/or ethnicity is bizarre.

Do you actually think that everyone must conform to some imposed stereotype? Because that's how you're coming across.


What's hard to understand? Answer the questions that I asked you.. Everyone (not literally) eats BBQ, not everyone wear turbans or du-rags. That's the point. You're pretending that every person enjoy or utilize the same goods and services. If the people who enjoy or utilize those services, don't support the vendor then those goods and services will disappear. What don't you understand about that?

Would you open a surf shop in the mountains?

Gbaji wrote:
This is part of your problem then. Stop doing that. Stop labeling people based on racial stereotypes you assume must apply. You then might not be so surprised at a white rapper, or a black country singer, or whatever else doesn't fit your pre-assumed stereotypes. Seriously. The problem is with you and the need to apply racial labels to everything. Some of us don't do that.


What you are doing is unnecessarily attaching "racist" connotations. You didn't answer my question about fragrances, soaps and shampoo. Are you equally offended by Men Shampoo, deodorant for woman or men's body wash?

You're a victim of our past. Our horrible history has made it taboo to say "black" or "white" when it's no different than any other label that we say.

Do you feel the same way about the terms "Chinese food", "Mexican food", "Japanese Sushi", "Egyptian music", etc? I've been to China and they don't even the food that we consider Chinese food, yet we still call it Chinese food. Does that bother you also?

Gbaji wrote:
Um. No. You made that assumption, not me. I simply said that if a director deliberately sets out to make a "black movie", it's not racism on the part of white people to not flock to go see it. Perhaps he shouldn't do that if he wants a broader audience? Just a thought. What do you think he's doing there?


For the love of God, quit interjecting "racism" when it isn't present. No one implied that white people are racists for not seeing movies with an all black cast. The point was that white people are generally not going to be as interested as black people.

You even said it again that it's the director's fault for having an all black cast. If you're not seeing "black/white", then it wouldn't matter if the entire cast is about black people or not. You're making the assumption that he is "deliberately" making a black movie, when in reality, s/he is just making a movie that consists of black people instead of the typical white people.

Gbaji wrote:
And white people do go to see films with mostly if not all black casts. Lots of times. What we generally do not enjoy watching are the ones that thump you over the head with the exact kind of racist rhetoric you are spouting right now though. I enjoyed the **** out of Boyz in the Hood. There was literally one 2 minute section of the film that I can't stand though. It's when Lawrence Fishbournes character takes a couple of the guys to an intersection in Compton and Spike Lee channels himself through the character and starts talking about how it's some kind of white conspiracy that there's a gun shop and a liquor store on every street corner and how white people send the drugs and into Compton in order for the black residents to kill each other over them.

Other than that short bit, it's a great film. You get that there's a difference between a film with a primarily minority cast and one which tosses racial rhetoric at the audience? I mean, ****. I've watched just about every Jackie Chan movie made. It never occurred to me to think of them as "Chinese films". Ever think that maybe there's something more to it than just the color of the people who happen to be cast in the film?


Really.. the numbers of viewers says other wise..

Movies with racist rhetoric..... give me examples...

Jackie Chan and not thought "Chinese", I doubt that.. I have a ton of Chinese martial arts movies and I watch them all in Mandarin. If you watched them in English, then you made a conscious decision to listen to an English voice over. If there weren't a Chinese audio track, then it probably wasn't a REAL Chinese movie, but an American movie with Chinese actors.

Gbaji wrote:
If you choose to benefit one person at the expense of another and you make that choice solely based on the skin color of the people involved, you are being a racist. Seriously. And it's not about "family". Every person who is your skin color isn't your family.


Dude... why would you think everyone in your race is your family. I said the exact opposite. People in your family are typically your race, along with your friends. These are the people that care the most about you. This isn't about solely supporting a specific race, but supporting the people who supports you, whom just so happens to be the same race as you.

And no, even still, that still isn't racist. Quit making up definitions. If you're not attracted to Malaysian women, that doesn't make you racist. The belief that Malaysian women are inferior to Korean women is racist. Do you see the difference?

Gbaji wrote:
That's my point. The white population as a whole did reject the racist ideas you seem to embrace (that you put your own racial group above all others). This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Until other groups learn to act in a non-racial manner, we're going to continue to have racial issues. Again, I'm not saying 100% of all white people are anti-racism.


Reread the portion again. I wasn't even talking about anything you mentioned. My point was that until white people embrace the wants and needs of other ethnicities, then each ethnicity has to embrace it themselves.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's just reality. There exists China Towns and Asian Towns in the U.S. Does that bother you?!?! There are Asian supermarkets that have Asian foods. If Asians didn't make these establishments, then these things wouldn't exist, because U.S non Asians are less likely to open such an establishment.

[Gbaji]I am saying that racism is vastly less prevalent among white populations and white people in the US as a whole reject institutional racism everywhere they see it.The problem is that when we oppose that racism where it benefits other groups, we get opposition from those groups and are called racists. It's hugely ironic.


The problem is people like you believe supporting your race is racism. You don't understand because you're not a minority. If you're already "on top", there is no need to "support the race", because you're already beneficial. On the other hand, if all of the money from your race benefits another race who in returns dumps the reaping back into their own race, leaving your own race short, then there is a problem. This is not saying "don't support race x, but support race y so everyone can reap some of the benefits as opposed to just race x.

[Gbaji]Sure. Because prejudice is a specific action which could be based upon anything. Racism is a set of actions which have as their primary determinant the color of someone's skin. I know you don't want racism to mean what it does, but if your primary reason for making a decision is someone's skin color, you are being racist. Period. Clinging to a definition of racism which allows the same action to either be or not be racism purely based on the skin color of the person taking the action is also racist. Surely, you can see this? Or not?

No you are talking about racism. You just don't realize that what you are saying is good is in fact racist because you've been taught a definition of racism which is itself racist. Don't worry though, you are by no means alone in your position. Which is part of the problem. If people who believed like you do were a tiny minority, you could be safely ignored. But you aren't.


You get that this ties to my original premise, right? If your definition of racism relies on the race of the person performing the act, then it would not be racism if a group that is currently a minority were to gain power and oppress white people, right? I'm presenting a hypothetical case here. But the purpose of the hypothetical case is to get you to examine your own positions. If something is wrong when those in power do it, shouldn't it also be wrong when those not in power do it?




Dictionary.com wrote:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


[Gbaji]My original argument was that the only way to obtain a truly equal society is to not try to game the system to benefit or harm anyone based on race. And yes, I fully admit that this will make it take longer for historical minorities to "catch up", but not as long as you might think. It's not like the majority or even a tiny minority of white people are benefited because of some long family wealth that they earned in the past and which gives them an unfair advantage today. Most people, absent any racial gaming will perform similarly if they make similar choices and will experience similar results regardless of their race.

Once again, I apologize.. I'm talking about the U.S. I'm not sure what country you're talking about. You're complaining about minorities working together to catch up because the majority isn't attending to the desires and wants of minorities and you say it wont take long? You haven't yet provided an alternative....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#124 Feb 24 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Getting skull-f'ucked by an unabridged dictionary (yes, by not with...) would be preferable to reading this crap.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#125 Feb 24 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Getting skull-f'ucked by an unabridged dictionary (yes, by not with...) would be preferable to reading this crap.


Although I'm part of the problem, it hurts my head as well.....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#126 Feb 24 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Dude, seriously.. you are implying that all white men were racist. My claim is that there were enough white men who weren't EVER racist. Those racist men didn't change their minds and hearts, they were forced to change policies. Once again, hence Jim Crow laws.


Holy ****!? I'm saying that the percentage of white men who were racist and the influence that their views had on the whole set of "white men" decreased over time, and that is what allowed ideas like equality to thrive in our society. I have said this very very clearly several times, but you keep ignoring what I actually write and pretending that I wrote something else you want to argue against. Stop doing that please.

Here. Let me show you:

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Which included a very large percentage of white men who were *not* racist. Not only were they not racist, but they choose to step up and fight against racism within their own group. If they had acted as you say the minorities of today should act (support your own group), this would not have happened.


How could you possibly have read that and thought I was saying that all white men were racist and then changed somehow. You're the one caught up in this assumption, not me.


Quote:
1. I'm not changing words, I'm saying that those men did not change their views.


Stop looking at individuals over a single life span. Look at the makeup of the entire group instead. An individual who is a racist is unlikely to change his views. However, the makeup of a group and the opinions within that group *will* change over time. Each generation may include more or fewer members of that group who hold a given view. Thus, over centuries the group labeled "white men" changed their overall view and approach to race, civil equality, liberty, freedom, equality, etc.

I honestly didn't think I'd have to keep re-explaining what I assumed was an incredibly obvious social reality. It's not about the individuals changing their minds. It's about the group changing over time. In this case, over many generations.

Get it yet? Sheesh!


Quote:
I said that your family is your race, not your race is your family.


No. You said that ethnic minorities should help other members of their own race. Then, when I challenged you on this, you changed the wording to "friends and family". Which only works if you are assuming that everyone of your own race is a member of the set "friends and family". Now, you're attempting to pretend that you didn't say what you started out saying.

The original statement you made was about members of an ethnic group choosing to help other members of their own ethnic group over those of other ethnic groups. Either defend that statement, or admit that it is wrong. Don't try to pretend you said something totally different.

And for the record, I don't know what kind of insular environment you live in, but my semi-immediate family (2nd cousin or closer living in the same metropolitan area) consists of people who are white, black, asian, and latino. So no. I completely reject this bizarre notion that "family and friends" is in any way related to race. The fact that you think so only displays yet more of your racial assumptions.

Quote:
I clearly made that distinction with the friends, so I'm not sure why you thought I meant "your race is your family".


Because you started off talking about discriminating based on race, and then justified it by saying that discriminating in this manner was no different than discriminating in favor of friends and family. What the **** was I supposed to assume you meant?


Quote:
Movies with racist rhetoric..... give me examples...


I just did. You quoted it even. The section of Boyz in the Hood where Fishbourn's character makes a grand speech about how all the problems in the hood are caused by white people clearly falls into the heading of "racial rhetoric". What the **** do you think racial rhetoric is?

Quote:
If there weren't a Chinese audio track, then it probably wasn't a REAL Chinese movie, but an American movie with Chinese actors.


So if I watch a film with an all or mostly black cast, but they aren't speaking jive, it's not a REAL Black film? Lol!

Quote:
Dude... why would you think everyone in your race is your family. I said the exact opposite.


Sigh. Not this again. You've managed to spin your illogic around in a full circle. Go back and read what you originally wrote and which I replied to. Ignore everything that you said after that because it's irrelevant. You're the one who replaced your original statement about members of an ethnic group favoring members of the same ethnic group with "friends and family". So if that equivalence isn't true (and I agree that it isn't), then instead of arguing about friends and family, let's ignore that and go back to what you originally said.

Do you still claim that members of an ethnic group should favor other members of the same ethnic group? Yes or no?


Quote:
Reread the portion again. I wasn't even talking about anything you mentioned. My point was that until white people embrace the wants and needs of other ethnicities, then each ethnicity has to embrace it themselves.


Like when white people ended slavery because they decided as a group that is was wrong to enslave someone just because they were a different skin color? Or when white people gave people who weren't of their race the right to vote? Or when white men gave women the right to vote? Or when white people fought against Jim Crow and segregation? Or when white people passed the civil rights act guaranteeing that all people have equal rights regardless of ***, race, or religion?

How many times do white people have to "embrace the wants and needs of other ethnicities"? I'm honestly curious what you think we should do? Eat more soul food? Really? I thought we were talking about this from the perspective of rights, not mandating what people eat, or what films they watch, or what products they buy.


My whole point is that in the cause of ending racism, it is enough to eliminate the laws and practices within society which artificially prevent racial groups from succeeding. But it is *not* required, nor is it even a good idea, to artificially help a racial group to succeed. Because by doing so, you are just committing more racism and perpetuating the problem.

I suspect you are suffering from the same inability to see the difference between positive and negative rights which infects so much of our social discourse in this country. But that's even a whole different topic by itself.

Quote:
The problem is people like you believe supporting your race is racism.


Yes, I do. Because it is. Seriously. If you don't get this, then I can't help you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#127 Feb 24 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you don't get this, then I can't help you.

Let's be honest, the odds of you helping him even if he did are very, very, slim and it has little to do with him.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#128 Feb 24 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji,

I'm not going to waste any more time with this until you answer my questions that you keep avoiding. Maybe you thought they were rhetorical, if so, they weren't.

I quoted directly from dictionary.com what the word "racism" means and yet you still claim it has other meanings. Until you answer my questions that I've presented to you, I'm not going to waste any more effort in responding to you, because you're just going to ignore me in order to support yourself.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#129 Feb 24 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not going to waste any more time with this until you answer my questions that you keep avoiding. Maybe you thought they were rhetorical, if so, they weren't.


It's not about them being rhetorical. It's about them being completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether I have personally attended a "black church" (whatever that means), doesn't affect my statement about wright and the lack of strong condemnation of his statements one bit.

I'm not going to feed into your strawman. I did not say that all black churches were like Wrights, nor did I even say a majority of them were. The only purpose for your question is to try to prove that I'm unqualified to claim something which I didn't claim in the first place. So no. I'm not going to play that game at all.


Quote:
I quoted directly from dictionary.com what the word "racism" means and yet you still claim it has other meanings.


Because it does. I'll give you a hint though, the official dictionary definitions tend to make a distinction between "racism" and "racial discrimination", which most of us don't when we converse about the subject. The point you also keep missing is that racism is not *always* just about a belief in racial superiority. Most definitions of racism say that's "often" or "usually" involved. But the methods of racism (more correctly called racial discrimination) can and do occur quite often without any association with an agenda based on superiority at all.

This is relevant because you are arguing that unless someone is acting on a belief in the superiority of their own race, that it's not "racism", and thus there's nothing wrong with it. I disagree. Regardless of what label we apply to the action, I believe that treating members of your own racial group better than you treat members of other racial groups, purely because of that difference, is a bad thing. I believe that it is racist. And no amount of semantic games will change that belief.

Quote:
Until you answer my questions that I've presented to you, I'm not going to waste any more effort in responding to you, because you're just going to ignore me in order to support yourself.



Um.... Ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Feb 24 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....

There's no point in engaging in a debate if you're not going to respond to questions. You can't just label everything as "irrelevant" that you don't want to answer. Just answer the question and the irrelevance will naturally come about if it is indeed irrelevant.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#131 Feb 24 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

[...]You can't just label everything as "irrelevant" that you don't want to answer.

Hi! You must be new here...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Feb 24 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:

There's no point in engaging in a debate if you're not going to respond to questions.


There's also no real debate if one side just tosses out random and unrelated questions in order to avoid the core issue being discussed.

Quote:
You can't just label everything as "irrelevant" that you don't want to answer.


Correct. But in this case, the question is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Quote:
Just answer the question and the irrelevance will naturally come about if it is indeed irrelevant.


Ok. I'll play: No. I do not regularly attend black churches, nor have I ever attended a church that you are likely to label as such. Happy? Now, I assume you're going to insist that this means that I'm not qualified to say that Wright and his church is typical of black churches? And then what? I didn't say they were.

See? Irrelevant.


Do you regularly fly on the space shuttle? No? Then you're not qualified to claim that space shuttle pilots are more likely to be racist than the rest of society! OMG! I just totally destroyed an argument you didn't make. Yay me!

Edited, Feb 24th 2011 4:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Feb 24 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#134 Feb 24 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
But that's the point. Over time, a sufficiently high percentage of white males saw the wrongness of racism/sexism and worked to eliminate the very things that were benefiting them. My concern, and I feel it's a legitimate one, is that those who currently view themselves as minorities may not have sufficiently high percentages of members who see the wrongness of those same things when they benefit them, and thus will perpetuate racism and sexism within our society.


What, you're afraid that black people would make white people their slaves if only they could, or something? Your concern isn't legitimate, because black people have nowhere near the kind of power to enact any meaningful change in favor of their race to that end (not even with a black president!). And if ever they did approach a significant portion of the population, then they would be in a position to consider as a sociocultural group the ramifications of that position. As it stands, they're a disenfranchised minority and entertaining how they would treat white people if they had more power has even less significance for you than it does for them. They're a little more worried about climbing out of poverty for now.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs seems fitting.

Quote:
But I don't go to that particular store because it's a "white store", whatever that means. I don't watch shows because they are "white shows". And I don't listen to music because it's by "white artists". I listen to music I like, and go to stores that have what I need to buy, and watch shows that have plots and characters that I enjoy watching. I don't take into account the skin color of the people involved with those things.


Of course you don't get it. YOU'RE WHITE. When you're white and you live in a systemically white culture, whiteness is something you take for granted. Black people have their own culture, but they live in that same systemically white culture, unless they develop a cultural pocket. What you don't understand is that for many black people, this is similar to being a foreigner in a foreign country. There are customs, behaviors, products, etc... that they aren't familiar with even in their own country, because they don't come from a white culture. Other people look down on them if they are boisterous, which is just a part of the culture-- in other countries, we are looked down on for the same thing.

Quote:
The very fact that you think this list is important shows how warped your viewpoint on this subject is. Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white" everything. It's incredibly telling (and funny as ****) that you think that I'm somehow racist if I *don't* watch BET, or read JET, but don't see the racism inherent in that very assumption.


Wow. Just wow...


It was obvious that he was making the point that some products and services are exclusive to black consumers and that there's nothing racist about it. It's not about racism. Most stores stock skin-tone bandaids, but whose skintone? Are the bandaid manufacturers racist? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that black people wouldn't like bandaids that are THEIR skin tone.

Quote:
Huh? So every white person is my family? I've never looked at it that way. Ever. My family are the people I'm related to, either by blood or marriage. My friends are the people I've grown attached to in various ways over my life. Neither of those have much to do with skin color.


It's one thing to not understand it on a personal level, but it's telling that you don't even understand the cultural differences well enough to already know this. People seek out people like them. For example, if you're a black student at a predominantly white school, you're probably going to hang out with the other black students who are more culturally similar to you. That's just human nature. And most white people, if the shoe were on the other foot, would do the same. But since we're white people surrounded by other white people, and particularly with whiteness being relatively heterogeneous, we don't feel that sense of racial unity.

Within the black community, and in most minority communities, there is a heightened sense of unity, and yes, almost a familial sense. And to dismiss this as wrong is the height of ignorance. It's not ideal, but it's not wrong.

And ultimately it won't change until there's no longer a perception of racism. Which is something that will NEVER go away as long as people like you ignorantly call to revoke "favoritist" policies, and people like varus maliciously stereotype an entire group of people.

Quote:
I'm not sure what your point is here. I go to a BBQ place in my old neighborhood that's owned and run by a black family. Why? Because the food is great. I used to work at a fast food place owned by an Iranian family. I still occasionally swing by there to grab their kabobs (yum!). Why? Because it's good food. I don't think it's unusual for a white person to work at a Chinese Food restaurant anymore than I think it's strange for a chinese kid to work at a McDonalds. And frankly, the fact that you seem to identify people so strongly by their race and/or ethnicity is bizarre.


You only think that because, again, you're a white man in a white man's world. Pretty much everything is "for you." If you don't want something, no big deal-- your culture is so ubiquitous here that Mexican food, Chinese, sushi-- these are all virtually mainstream American dining. It's your prerogative to sample anything you like. When you go into a store, you're like the Visa in your wallet-- accepted anywhere.

Being black isn't always like that.

Quote:
If something is wrong when those in power do it, shouldn't it also be wrong when those not in power do it?

My original argument was that the only way to obtain a truly equal society is to not try to game the system to benefit or harm anyone based on race. And yes, I fully admit that this will make it take longer for historical minorities to "catch up", but not as long as you might think. It's not like the majority or even a tiny minority of white people are benefited because of some long family wealth that they earned in the past and which gives them an unfair advantage today. Most people, absent any racial gaming will perform similarly if they make similar choices and will experience similar results regardless of their race.


First of all, no-- just because something is wrong when those in power do it, doesn't necessarily mean it will be wrong when those not in power do it. That's not how ethics work. Morality, even if you subscribe to a pretty rigid set of morals, is contextual, and different contexts permit different guidelines.

Secondly, do you even understand systemic racism? Do you understand that for a group of people to pull themselves out of a historically defined economic oppression falls somewhere between incredibly difficult and impossible?

You and I have advantages just by sheer virtue of being white. We are more likely to have educated, higher SES parents and grandparents who were better able to provide for us and were better equipped to socially adjust us to a culture that is their own. We are less prone to be victim to racism. More goods and services are targeted directly to our cultural desires.

Quote:

My whole point is that in the cause of ending racism, it is enough to eliminate the laws and practices within society which artificially prevent racial groups from succeeding. But it is *not* required, nor is it even a good idea, to artificially help a racial group to succeed. Because by doing so, you are just committing more racism and perpetuating the problem.


Racism is oppressive discrimination. Helping people based on race isn't racism when those people are already disadvantaged. And if there ever is a time when the footing is more equal, I doubt there will be too much resistance to the idea of doing away with that kind of policy; however, to think that it does more harm than good is unsubstantiated at best, more likely absurd, and at worst, perpetuates the perception that racism is still alive and well.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#135 Feb 24 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
btw, I read and replied to this thread because I'm bored at a relative's house. Don't expect another, because I hope I'm not this lacking for amusement again.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#136 Feb 24 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....




Sigh. None of which address the issue that I raised and which you responded to. See how that works? I gave you one. Now by all means attempt to explain to me how me not attending black churches somehow invalidates my claim that the statements made by people like Rev Wright are often ignored, overlooked, or even defended among the broader community of black people in this country.

Do you see how that claim is directly relevant to my broader argument that it's a bad idea to put in place laws which benefit minority groups since those benefits based on race may not be set aside when/if the scales of power shift the other direction and they are no longer lacking power in other areas?


My original argument was that we should work instead to remove any/all legal institutions which affect the fortunes of our citizens differently based on their skin color. I provided a pretty clear cut rationale for this, to which you've responded with what I can only describe as the internet equivalent of puking on someone's shoes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Feb 24 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....




Sigh. None of which address the issue that I raised and which you responded to. See how that works? I gave you one. Now by all means attempt to explain to me how me not attending black churches somehow invalidates my claim that the statements made by people like Rev Wright are often ignored, overlooked, or even defended among the broader community of black people in this country.

Do you see how that claim is directly relevant to my broader argument that it's a bad idea to put in place laws which benefit minority groups since those benefits based on race may not be set aside when/if the scales of power shift the other direction and they are no longer lacking power in other areas?


My original argument was that we should work instead to remove any/all legal institutions which affect the fortunes of our citizens differently based on their skin color. I provided a pretty clear cut rationale for this, to which you've responded with what I can only describe as the internet equivalent of puking on someone's shoes.


I asked you several questions that you ignored.. If you think that all of those questions in that one post are irrelevant, then answer them and show how they are irrelevant.

You made a statement about black churches that completely contradicted my personal experience and any other admitted personal experience. So, I merely asked you the source of your information by asking you if you actually attend black churches.

If you don't see the relevance of knowing if you're information is from personal experience or something you saw on TV, then.. I really don't know... Actual experience holds more value than random stuff you pull off the Internet.

So, if you address the rest of my questions, then I'll address the remainder of your comments.

Kachi wrote:
btw, I read and replied to this thread because I'm bored at a relative's house. Don't expect another, because I hope I'm not this lacking for amusement again.


It's a sad day when we agree (for the most part), but I would like to point out that I don't believe white people can't or don't understand, only that Gbaji doesn't understand because he obviously haven't been a similar situation because of the things that he mentioned.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#138 Feb 24 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It's a sad day when we agree (for the most part), but I would like to point out that I don't believe white people can't or don't understand, only that Gbaji doesn't understand because he obviously haven't been a similar situation because of the things that he mentioned.


For what it's worth, at least you're not as awful as I thought.

gbaji is prone to reactance, so arguing with him really doesn't achieve anything unless you get off on that sort of thing. But by all means, have at it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#139 Feb 24 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Kachi wrote:
What, you're afraid that black people would make white people their slaves if only they could, or something?


As a hypothetical, sure. Let's examine that.

Quote:
Your concern isn't legitimate, because black people have nowhere near the kind of power to enact any meaningful change in favor of their race to that end (not even with a black president!).


Irrelevant. The hypothetical assumes that they do. Hence, the "if they could", part.

Quote:
And if ever they did approach a significant portion of the population, then they would be in a position to consider as a sociocultural group the ramifications of that position.


Absolutely. My question is: Do they exhibit the same level of broad sociological support for the principles of racial equality (even if it means a negative result for your own race), which white people exhibited for centuries prior to even ending slavery, much less passing the civil rights act?

Imagine a long scale of history. We didn't just one day end slavery. It was a process, right? The constitution was written about a century earlier, and included language which should have prohibited slavery, but the institution continued anyway. And the racial equality movement, broadly agreed with in principle, still suffered resistance for nearly another century even after slavery was ended. Now imagine a time line of those changes in terms of how the whole of white society in America viewed race. My question is: Where on that timeline would you place the whole of black society in America today?

When considering your answer, examine statements made by black leaders like Sharpton and Jackson. And examine the reactions to those words. And examine the assumptions made by people like Alma within that context (not sure if that's a good representative sample of the "common person", but whatever). When the idea that it's natural and ok for ethnic groups to band together to benefit members of their own group, where does that put us?


I'll point out again that institutions like slavery and Jim Crow could only end as a result of the majority society maturing collectively on the issue of race. Had said society chosen, as Alma seems to think is perfectly acceptable, to act in the best interests of their own group first, it's hard to imagine why they'd ever have given up that power when they had it.


I think it's perfectly relevant to ask if, based on the current rhetoric and views on race being used among some minority groups (let's stick to black for now), those same people would suddenly change their positions if they were the ones in power instead. How conditional are their views of race based on the current state of power, and how much is just based on, as Alma said: Helping your own kind?


Quote:
It was obvious that he was making the point that some products and services are exclusive to black consumers and that there's nothing racist about it. It's not about racism. Most stores stock skin-tone bandaids, but whose skintone? Are the bandaid manufacturers racist? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that black people wouldn't like bandaids that are THEIR skin tone.


Yeah. And this was another one of those irrelevant questions that was asked. I never stated that tailoring products to specific consumers was wrong or racist. I said that blaming white people for *not* buying the products targeted to black consumers is silly. You wouldn't blame a white person for buying the white skin tone bandaid anymore than I'd blame a black person for wanting to buy a black one. It's irrelevant to the question I posed. No one was arguing that it's racism to target products to black consumers.

What I did say is that it is racist for a black person to choose to shop only at a "black store", for the sole purpose of helping out the black owner and the black workers there economically. It is racist for exactly the same reason why it would be racist for a white person to choose to only shop at stores owned by people of his own skin color.

If you recall, this was the argument Alma originally made. That it was ok to "help out your own people". It was not about buying products that appeal to you. That's why his follow up is irrelevant. The criteria he originally used, and to which I disagreed, had nothing to do with products, and everything to do with the race of the people who would benefit from the business.

Quote:
Within the black community, and in most minority communities, there is a heightened sense of unity, and yes, almost a familial sense. And to dismiss this as wrong is the height of ignorance. It's not ideal, but it's not wrong.


You know? I was going to write a longish bit about how black culture in the US was largely invented in the 60s as a deliberate means to distinguish and alienate them from whites and as a means of empowering the leaders of various political movements, but let's just ignore that since it's largely meaningless at this point, decades later. I'll just accept that and move on, I guess.

So the point I'm making still stands though. While the "banding together" may be a natural result of being a smaller culture within a larger one, the result is that the members of that group learn that it's ok (heck, required) for them to act in negative ways toward other racial groups, as a means of empowerment. My question is still relevant: Does that cultural trend disappear as they gain power within the larger culture? Or does that trend actually amplify as their power grows (they'll see this as their tactics working perhaps?), until they gain power and then continue to use the same racial methodology to secure it and ensure that they never again lose it.

I'd suggest that this is far more likely within an historical context. Of course, that's hard to say given that we've never seen a modern example of such a shift within a society largely based on the principles of liberalism. Um... But the flip side is that those who adopt that "minority culture" viewpoint aren't really acting upon those principles, are they?

Hence, why I posited the question. IMO it's a legitimate thing to ponder.

Quote:
And ultimately it won't change until there's no longer a perception of racism. Which is something that will NEVER go away as long as people like you ignorantly call to revoke "favoritist" policies, and people like varus maliciously stereotype an entire group of people.


How can you eliminate the perception of racism (which I assume you mean as a removal of the view of someone with a different skin color to be of a different "group" than yourself) as long as we have those "favorist" policies which treat us differently based on our skin color? How do you think that will happen? Can it ever happen?

IMO, those policies perpetuate that aspect of racism. It makes us constantly aware of the different groups of people within our society, all separated by race. We are reminded of this every time we fill out a government form which asks us to name the group we're a member of. How can we ever eliminate that perception if we're required to constantly self-identify ourselves by race by our government almost constantly?


Quote:
Being black isn't always like that.


Why not? And isn't that the problem? If the issue is racial perception, then isn't the solution to get rid of the perception? What if black people didn't think of themselves as "black"? What if they just thought of themselves as "people"? Can you even comprehend what a major advance that would be in terms of social evolution? Can you also see how this is the route to ending racism?

So. Is the problem that the larger society constantly reminds everyone that it is made by whites and for whites? Or is the problem that the smaller societies within it are constantly told that they are black and living in a white world?

Quote:
First of all, no-- just because something is wrong when those in power do it, doesn't necessarily mean it will be wrong when those not in power do it. That's not how ethics work. Morality, even if you subscribe to a pretty rigid set of morals, is contextual, and different contexts permit different guidelines.


You're splitting hairs there. The vast majority of the time, what I said is absolutely correct. Morals, the "right and wrong" of social conduct, is (or should be) consistent across all the members of the society those morals apply to. It can be argued, in fact, that what you're describing is a case which only exists if we assume some kind of class based society in which different rules can be said to apply to different people.

We don't live in such a system. Well, or we're not supposed to. Of course, when we pass laws which treat people differently based on the color of their skin, we're kinda implementing that old and flawed methodology. Which is one of the reasons I think it's a bad idea.

But if we assume we're pursuing some kind of principled ideal, I'm going to stand by my statement that if something is wrong when done by someone in power, it's also wrong when done by someone not in power. And this certainly is doubly true when we're not talking about the individual people in power, but merely people who happen to be in the social majority.

Quote:
Secondly, do you even understand systemic racism? Do you understand that for a group of people to pull themselves out of a historically defined economic oppression falls somewhere between incredibly difficult and impossible?


I'd argue that it's incredibly difficult and/or impossible if those people continue to think of themselves as a separate group of people. If they instead simply become part of the larger group, then they have no problems at all. My point is that the systemic racism you're talking about is currently being perpetuated by the very "fight" to fight systemic racism. That's why it can't win. You're literally fighting yourself by doing that.

The way to beat racism in a society is to stop labeling people by race. I know this may seem like a radical concept to many people, but that's the only way it works. As long as people think of themselves as members of a race and not just members of a larger society, one such group will always be "in power", and the rest minorities. And if every minority always fights to be in power, or to balance out the power held by the majority, the cycle will never ever end.

Don't you see that?

Quote:
You and I have advantages just by sheer virtue of being white. We are more likely to have educated, higher SES parents and grandparents who were better able to provide for us and were better equipped to socially adjust us to a culture that is their own. We are less prone to be victim to racism. More goods and services are targeted directly to our cultural desires.


The economic advantages of being white should not have lasted more than a couple generations past the passage of the civil rights act. And the cultural stuff is honestly BS. The biggest thing holding black america back is that it insists on being treated as "black america" instead of just Americans. Think about it. There are other ethnic groups within the US who have started from vastly different cultural backgrounds than the cultural delta between black and white in the US. Yet they don't experience anywhere near the social problems that blacks do.

Why? And it's not racism directed towards blacks. It really isn't. This is somewhat off my original topic, but whatever.

Quote:
Racism is oppressive discrimination. Helping people based on race isn't racism when those people are already disadvantaged.


In my opinion, it is. You should help people who are disadvantaged regardless of their skin color. Not because of it.


Quote:
And if there ever is a time when the footing is more equal, I doubt there will be too much resistance to the idea of doing away with that kind of policy; however, to think that it does more harm than good is unsubstantiated at best, more likely absurd, and at worst, perpetuates the perception that racism is still alive and well.


I disagree. I think the policies themselves perpetuate racism. As I stated earlier, you can't end racism as long as you have those policies. And even if those who gain power change their views and stop thinking in terms of fighting for benefits for their race, you'll still have others who will now be the new minorities. And they'll do the same thing and the cycle will just continue forever.


Maybe I'm a dreamer, but to me this is not a solution. It's a great way to get people to support you politically, but it'll never actually solve the problem of "racism".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Feb 24 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You made a statement about black churches that completely contradicted my personal experience and any other admitted personal experience.


Sigh. What statement?


I didn't say anything about "black churches" in general. I just finished explaining this to you. I used Wright's church's 12 principles as an example of racism among the black community which does not generally get condemned or even noticed as much as it should. Had you read what I wrote, you'd have seen this.


Quote:
So, I merely asked you the source of your information by asking you if you actually attend black churches.


My source of information was that those 12 princples were originally from the web site of the church in question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Feb 24 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You made a statement about black churches that completely contradicted my personal experience and any other admitted personal experience.


Sigh. What statement?


I didn't say anything about "black churches" in general. I just finished explaining this to you. I used Wright's church's 12 principles as an example of racism among the black community which does not generally get condemned or even noticed as much as it should. Had you read what I wrote, you'd have seen this.


Almalieque the All knowing wrote:
So, I merely asked you the source of your information by asking you if you actually attend black churches.


My source of information was that those 12 princples were originally from the web site of the church in question.


Address the rest of my questions and I'll address your questions.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#142 Feb 25 2011 at 4:54 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Um... That would be a big fat no. I've already told you I view your questions as nothing more than a means for you to sidetrack the discussion into meaningless tangents. I'm not going to play that game with you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Feb 25 2011 at 5:14 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I'm not sure what to think of this Alma vs Gbaji argument, it's even less entertaining than the usual Joph vs Gbaji sparring matches.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#144 Feb 25 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... That would be a big fat no. I've already told you I view your questions as nothing more than a means for you to sidetrack the discussion into meaningless tangents. I'm not going to play that game with you.


Well, like I tell everyone else who pulls that same stunt, you're just using a cop out because you don't want to contradict your claim.

You responded to my "family is your race" comment with the interpretation as "your race is your family" which is an incredibly stupid interpretation. You made multiple comments of racial implications when NO ONE ever made comments or implications that white people are racists if they don't do x,y, or z. Yet, in all of these scenarios you responded.

You made comments about how society shouldn't use labels to describe things such as music, food, movies. I respond to you that we always use labels, that our history made it taboo to use certain labels. Furthermore I ask you if other certain labels equally offend you. That is 100% relevant to the topic. For you not to answer those questions is evident that you're not offended by those other labels, which means your original comments are wrong.

You're only responding to comments that you think you can counter.

But, if you don't want to man up and answer relevant questions and admit that you might have misspoken, then so be it.

I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#145 Feb 25 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I'm not sure what to think of this Alma vs Gbaji argument, it's even less entertaining than the usual Joph vs Gbaji sparring matches.


I look at it much like a marriage of two miserable asshOles. All you can do is just be thankful they're not out there making two other people miserable.
#146 Feb 25 2011 at 9:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.
#147 Feb 25 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#148 Feb 25 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
Not evidence of always, but evidence of once anyway. Not surprisingly though, you missed the point of what DW was saying.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#149 Feb 25 2011 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
Not evidence of always, but evidence of once anyway. Not surprisingly though, you missed the point of what DW was saying.
Admitting to being wrong /= being open-minded.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#150 Feb 25 2011 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
gbaji wrote:

The concern is that this same social maturation process was not experienced by other groups, so when they are handed more power and rules that are tilted in their favor, are they going to be as willing to give that power and the advantage of tilted rules up?


The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.
____________________________
Manifest, Valefor
BST/PLD/COR/BRD/WAR/THF/SMN/BLM/WHM 99
RDM/SCH/DNC/NIN/WAR/SAM/RNG 49
PUP 30, BLU 16

Maniken, Valefor
WHM/DRG/BRD/MNK/RDM/WAR/BLM 99
SCH/NIN/SAM/BST 49
BLU 16

Linkshell: ChaoticUnion

Sozu Rogberry(pre Thf Knife patch): 0/49 ><
#151 Feb 25 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
Not evidence of always, but evidence of once anyway. Not surprisingly though, you missed the point of what DW was saying.
Admitting to being wrong /= being open-minded.


While this maybe true, a person that isn't open minded is less likely to admit to being wrong. In any case, I'm very open minded, because I always believe that there is a possibility that the other person is right and I'm wrong.

Manifest of Kujata wrote:
The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.


That's utter BS. There is no correlation with power and hatred. A poor person with no social status can be just as hateful as a rich person with social status. A rich person with social status can be just as loving as a poor person with no social status.

If what you're saying is true, then every white male with social status in the U.S. secretly wants to re-establish slavery. The social power only allows people with hatred to act on their hatred on greater levels, it does not produce the hatred.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CST
Poldaran, sained, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (32)